Saturday, May 16, 2009

Obama eliminates the MORMON question

CNN did a story about Obama tapping Governor Huntsman of Utah to be the Ambassador to China. They mentioned he learned Chinese when he served a mission.

Since this is Obama's pick, Huntsman just served a mission- had this been McCain's pick, Bush's pick, it would have been an LDS mission. I have read a few other stories that have mentioned the word LDS or Mormon mission, but that is the end of the discussion.

This goes back to the Harry Reid issue- if a player is part of the Democrat agenda- there is no Mormon issue- however, if it's part of the Republican agenda watch the media go full court press on religion.

Take note that religion will not even be remotely touched on in the vetting of Governor Huntsman. I'm glad, this was a very good call by President Obama. Wouldn't it have been nice if Romney had been given the same respect?


adam said...


Sherpa said...

Eh, if I remember right, the other republican candidates attacked Gov. Romney's religion.

Sally said...

I am glad about Huntsman. I agree with your observations.

davers said...

I have long believed that a Mormon democrat (if one could get through the primaries) would have better chances of become President of the US than a Mormon republican's chances.

Sadly, the democrat agenda on moral issues is generally regarded in opposition to Church doctrine more often than not. That isn't to say that their original philosophy democrat is that way ... in fact I believe the people of that party have strayed very far from their original ideals, and presently it seems to most members (all Christians in fact) that they are less compatible with theism (and even deism) in general than that of the republican party.

So statistically speaking a viable Mormon presidential candidate is far less likely to ever emerge in the primaries of the democrat party.

Steve said...

In a positive spin to Davers comment, it shows that Dems can look aside from one's religion and pick the best qualified. Although, I happen to think that if he wasn't recommended by name, this is also a way to keep a strong candidate from running against him (the plan, Huntsman already was doing preliminary work in NH...) in 2012. Oh well, he is young and there is always 2016.

Sherpa is right, the biggest attackers on Romney weren't the media (MSNBC hardly ever made a big deal about his religion for instance), but Huckabee and other Rep. contestants.

Although, I find your stance here somewhat hypocritical Salty, because if Huntsman or whoever was choses happened to be atheist or Islam, don't you think or WANT the media to make a big deal that the President was placing that sort of person in such a highly profile position? And if you weren't, I know the right would!

Salt H2O said...

After the last election I decided that the Republican party was the party of religous bigotry- however that didn't stop any media source from exploiting it (articles in various news publications such as NYT, Time and even the Economist couldn't look past his religon to see his glaring resume of qualifications)

As to whether or not I'd care- I'm all about the resume. It's a job, and I want the most qualified person in position to execute the job their hired for- which is why I was against Obama in the first place. The nation chose to hire a man with an empty resume.

Jeri10 said...

I have two words for you:
You're Awesome
(maybe that's three words?)
See my ridiculous blogs at:

Sherpa said...

Steve-I agree about with you about 2012 and 2016. It would be AWESOME to have a President who spoke Chinese fluently with Ambassador to China on his resume.

See, and I see the media's focus on Romney's religion as free publicity for the Church. Some of the articles were more accurate than others-but well, any publicity is free publicity. :)

As far as media exploition? The Media will go for the hook, the curve-but I don't really bye media conspiracies to sink the best candidate.

Mitt was a victim of the Republican Party-the other candidates, the christian right, and Mittens himself (sorry, I love that nickname), were just as responsible for his loss in '08. Personally, I would've had a harder time not voting for McCain with Mitt on his ticket rather than Palin.

Oh and Go Huntsman!!

Salt H2O said...

It's nice that we all agree on Huntsman now, I hope we'll all agree on him in 2016 :)

Steve said...

Well, a moderate Republican couldn't win this election, it'll be interesting to see if one can win one of the next two elections. Per history, the next one will be Republican, which is due more to economic cycles and public sentiment to vote for change than actual party affiliation.

Cameron said...

Speaking of a Mormon Democrat having an easier time...

I read recently speculation that Huntsman not only is out of the 2012 running, but he's also out of the running to shape the Republican party more to his brand of moderateness. The speculation then was that when he comes back from China, it may be as a Democrat.

Steve said...

Cameron, good thought! Does it matter which party he is a member of? It does make sense that with him in China for the next 4-8 years that he will have zero influence back here in the States. It is probably safe to assume that there won't be a chance for a Democrat to run for President (other than Obama as the incumbent obviously) until 2016 and I don't see too many in the party that are the current leaders lasting that long. They'll need younger (aged 40-50 now) to season until then.